1

This is so interesting... I have considered going carnivore or VLC a few times but with having to cook for my mom as well my options are a bit more limited. She is down for whatever, but I think I WOULD miss veggies. I love making food LOOK good and TASTE good and as delicious as meat is, I am afraid I wouldn&#39;t be able to handle JUST meat all the time...

1

@mandabear I feel the exact same way. Most of my dishes are meat based for sure but I almost always HAVE to add some veggies for color and texture and just to keep my brain engaged while eating too. I only don&#39;t do this if I&#39;m having eggs and meat together, but if not, I almost always have veggies... I&#39;m not sure how many carbs I get, I would hope under 100... I would try to do this but it sounds a little hard to do, for me, since I have grown to really enjoy a small side of veggies at every meal. I feel more "balanced" that way.

1

Great posts, I&#39;m also thinking about trying ZC (maybe with a some leek, garlic and stuff like that for flavouring), but I&#39;m still kinda "afraid".

I&#39;ve already read many topics at ZIOH but they seem to be too focused on meat only and everything else is bad so I think MDA is a better place to discuss the whole thing.

I hope Tarlach and other carnivores could clarify a couple of things for me:

How well could one do with ground meat? I can get very good quality ground beef fairly cheap, other types of meat are kinda expensive. My concern is that ground meat should be cooked very well, would I lose any nutrients and risk getting deficiencies?

How important is it to eat organs? Not a big fan of it and there seem to be two sides. On ZIOH they say it is not necessary, Mark thinks they are.

So I would mainly eat ground beef and other types of beef, sometimes chicken and fish. I&#39;d cook with butter or self made ghee.

1

I personally think organ meats are vital to great health. Even in very small amounts. They are so nutrient rich, and you can always add them to ground meat if you don&#39;t like the taste. (I puree chicken livers, freeze in ice cube trays, then throw a couple cubes in w/ ground meat or sauces and cook it all together--virtually unnoticable.)

http://www.truthaboutabs.com/weird-nutrient-dense-meat.html
[quote]

Many cultures use almost the entire animal for food, including the organs. The most often-used organs are the liver, tongue, kidneys, brains, heart, stomach, and intestines. If you take a look at our dietary history, it is obvious that organ meat was very common and eaten even more often than the muscle meat of animals.

What did our ancestors know that we&#39;ve ignored in recent times?

They realized that the organs contained some of the most concentrated sources of nutrients and were the most important part of the animal to eat.

Compared to regular cuts of muscle meat, organ meats are more densely packed with just about every nutrient, including heavy doses of B vitamins such as: B1, B2, B6, folic acid and vitamin B12.

Organ meats are also loaded with minerals like phosphorus, iron, copper, magnesium and iodine, and provide the important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Key to remember here is that animals raised outside on grass contain even higher levels of these essential nutrients than their grain-fed counterparts.</blockquote>

All traditional cultures consume some sort of animal food, such as fish and shellfish; land and water fowl; land and sea mammals; eggs; milk and milk products; reptiles; and insects. The whole animal is consumed --muscle meat, organs, bones and fat, with the organ meats and fats preferred.</blockquote>

1

Let&#39;s keep in mind that Grok and modern Groks know nothing about nutrients, mineral, vitamins. No lab tests, liver vs. brain, ya know? Sometimes we give 21st century seeing to situations that never existed.

They probably ate most of the critter because to do otherwise would have been wasteful.

1

I agree with OnTheBayou. It&#39;s quite possible that Grok simply preferred muscle meat (just as we do) and left the rest if not required.

Stefansson lived with the Eskimo for many years, including at least one tribe that had never before met a &#39;white man&#39;:
[quote]

Stefansson also rejected the second proviso (more than he did the first one) that they ate the entire animal. Both Eskimo and northern forest Indians, and whites who live with them have a clear mental picture of the animal they butcher. They divide the carcass then or later so that certain parts go uniformly to the dog team, the rest to the family. These divisions of the carcass vary from one animal to another but do not vary within the species unless slightly by season. The liver is nearly always given to the dogs as are the sweetbreads and all things in the body cavity except the heart and kidneys. The kidneys were given to the children somewhat as if they were candy. The only time the forest Indians and the Inuit of northern Alaska and northwestern Canada ate the whole animal was only under the conditions of famine. When they ceased to give the dogs the parts that they normally got, it was also time to kill the dogs themselves and eat them too.
</blockquote>

http://blog.zeroinginonhealth.com/?p=397

Doesn&#39;t seem to be any merit to the myth that Eskimos ate the entire animal. Like us, they preferred muscle meat.

I&#39;m sure you can eat organs (and you should probably eat them when you feel like it), but I&#39;m not so sure they are &#39;vital&#39; on a carnivorous diet.

I&#39;m much more inclined to believe that it is a CW myth that you &#39;need to eat the whole animal&#39;, used to deter people from going carnivorous (by trying to scare them).

1

In Elizabeth Marshall Thomas&#39; account of the !Kung bushmen (THE OLD WAY) she notes that hunters immediately divide the body of the animal so that the 3 or 4 hunters in the party can carry it back to the community...except that they immediately ate the liver in order to restore their strength.